Tribhuwan Singh जी, यह रहा अनुवाद संजय कोटियाल ड्वारा प्राप्त लेख का:
भारत की जाति व्यवस्था और अमेरिकी बहुलवाद-कुछ समानताएंएम लाल गोयलराजनीति विज्ञान के प्रोफेसर एमेरिटस पश्चिम फ्लोरिडा विश्वविद्या
लयwww.uwf.edu/lgoel lgoel@uwf.edu
विगत 2009 में न्यूजवीक में प्रकाशित लीसा मिलर का एक लेख इंगित करता है कि "भगवान, स्वयम्, अन्य, तथा शाश्वत/अनंतकाल के चिंतन पर अमेरिकन लोगों की सोच धीरे-धीरे हिंदुअों की तरह ज्यादा होती चली जा रही है, बजाय पारंपरिक ईसाई सोच की जगह". लेखिका ने निम्नलिखित मतसंग्रह परिणाम उद्धरित किया है: 67% अमरीकी लोगों का मानना है कि शाश्वत-जीवन ("eternal life", ईसाई मतानुसार) ईसाइयत ही नहीं, बल्कि उसके अलावा बहुत सारे अन्य धर्म भी प्रदान कर सकते हैं, एक मत जो कि अद्वैतवादी ईसाई दृष्टि के स्थान पर बहुलवादी हिंदू लोकाचार को अधिक दर्शाती है; 30% अमरीकियों ने स्वयम् को "धार्मिक नहीं, अाध्यात्मिक" बताया; 24% का कथन था कि वह पुनर्जन्म में विश्वास करते हैं, तथा एक-तिहाई से अधिक ने दफनाये जाने की जगह दाहसंस्कार की प्रक्रिया का वरण किया.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/212155 . इसी श्रेणी में अमेरिकी जनता में पनपती जातिप्रथा-सी अनेकता तथा उनकी बहुसंस्कृति भी जोड़े जा सकते हैं. यह लेख भारत की जाति व्यवस्था , इसका मूल, तथा इस पर पड़े मुस्लिम और ब्रिटिश शाही शासन के नकारात्मक प्रभावों का वर्णन करता है, और अमेरिकी सामाजिक परिदृश्य के विवरण के साथ समाप्त होता है ।
परिचय:
"जाति" भारत में एक बिल्ला/तमगा/पदक है। जब हम हिंदू भारत के बारे में सोचते हैं, हम जाति पर ही विचार कर रहे होते हैं. "जाति" राष्ट्रीय शर्म का विषय बन चुका है। गांधी, नेहरू, अम्बेडकर, जेम्स मिल, एब डुबॉइज सहित मानवविज्ञानी जीएस घुर्ये और एमएन श्रीनिवास के अलावा अन्य प्राच्याध्याइयों ने जातिप्रथा को अपनी अपनी श्रद्धांजली दी है. इसके उपरांत भी जाति एक काली छाया के जैसे भारत पर धिरी हुई है. यह सब होते हुये भी जाति पर अाधारित भारतीय समाज अपनी विविधता को बहुमूल्य मानता तथा उसका संरक्षण भी करता है.
कैलिफोर्निया विश्वविद्यालय के डॉ निकोलस डर्क्स बताते हैं कि जाति भारतीय परंपरा की मूलभूत अभिव्यक्ति है ही नहीं। बल्कि, उनके अनुसार, जाति एक आधुनिक घटना है। यह "भारत और ब्रिटिश औपनिवेशिक शासन के बीच एक ऐतिहासिक मुठभेड़ के उत्पाद है।" पूर्व-औपनिवेशिक समाज में, भारतीयों की पहचान के अाधार एकाधिक थे - मंदिर समुदाय, गांव पड़ोस, वंश और परिवार समूह, व्यावसायिक समाज और भक्ति समाज अादि। जातिगत पहचान अन्य कई उपरोक्त सामाजिक समूहों में से मात्र एक था. पर ब्रिटिश राज के चलते, "जाति" इस जटिल भारतीय वास्तविकता को वर्गीकृत करने और व्यवस्थित करने के लिए "एक शब्द मात्र" बन गया। (देखें: Nicholas Dirks: Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India, Princeton University Press, 2001, P. 5)
16वीं तथा 17वीं सदी के यूरोपी यात्रियों ने जाति का उल्लेख यदा-कदा ही किया है. उन्होनें इस हिंदू समाज को समझने में इसके महत्व पर बल नहीं दिया था. ईस्ट इंडिया कंपनी के अलेक्जेंडर डॉव ने 1768 में "हिन्दुस्तान का इतिहास" नामक एक ग्रंथ प्रकाशित किया था। उस ग्रंथ में जाति को मात्र एक पृष्ठ का स्थान दिया गया है.
प्रारंभिक यूरोपी लेखक को "जाति" भारत की एक विशिष्टता के रुप में नहीं लिया. वे अपने देशों के समाज की जातीय व्यवस्था से पूर्व-परिचित थे, अत: उनने इसे उसी रूप में देखा. राजनैतिक अर्थव्यवस्था पर लिखे अपने निबंधों में जे. एस. मिल ने कहा है कि यूरोपी व्यावसायिक समूहों में वंशानुगत भेद प्रदर्शित कर सकने में जातितुल्य क्षमता थी.
Abbe Dubois, एक फ्रेंच मिशनरी, सर्वाधिक प्रभावशाली यूरोपीय यात्रियों में से एक थे। वह तमिल भाषा सीख आम लोगों के बीच रहते थे। डुबॉइज़ को हिंदुओं को ईसाई धर्म में परिवर्तित करने में कठिनाई हो रही थी। उन्होंने इस कठिनाई के लिए हिंदू जाति व्यवस्था को जिम्मेदार ठहराया। उनका मानना था हिंदू अपने जातिगत अंधविश्वासों और पूर्वाग्रहों के आदी रहे हैं, तथा उन्हें कोई नहीं बदल सकता। उनकी 1816 में प्रकाशित पुस्तक "हिंदू मैनर्स, कस्टम्स एेंड सेरेमनीज़" सत्तारूढ़ ईस्ट इंडिया कंपनी के लिये मार्गप्रसश्ति हेतु अाधिकारिक जानकारी ही बन गई.
मिशनरीज हिंदुओं को ईसाई धर्म में परिवर्तित कर पाने में सामान्यतया हताश ही रहते थे। इस विफलता के लिए जाति को दोषी ठहराया गया। यह माना गया कि "चतुर ब्राह्मण" जनता को मिलाकर रख रहे थे। 1857 के विद्रोह (जिसमें कि ब्रिटिश अपने साम्राज्य से लगभग हाथ धो बैठे थे) के बाद , अंग्रेजों ने ब्रिटिश मिशनरी गतिविधियों में ढील बरती। ब्रिटिश अधिकारी भयभीत थे कि धर्म में हस्तक्षेप करने पर जनता भड़क कर विद्रोह कर देगी। अत: अब शासकों ने ईसाई धर्म के प्रसार के स्थान पर राजनैतिक नियंत्रण की स्थापना को प्राथमिकता दी।
लंबे मुस्लिम शासन (1201-1707) से भी क्षभारत की जाति व्यवस्था पर नकारात्मक असर पड़ा। मुस्लिम अत्याचार के खिलाफ लड़ाई लड़ने वाले अनेक सामाजिक समूह पराजय के बाद समाज के बाहर खदेड़ दिये गये, और यह सामाजिक समूह समयोपरांत निचली जातियाँ बन गयीं। भारत की अनेक सफाईधर्मी अछूत जातियों में कई राजपूत गोत्रों तथा वंशों के नाम पाये जाते हैं। जैसा कि भारतीय इतिहास के अध्येता अच्छी तरह से जानते हैं, राजपूत सदियों तक उत्तर भारत के इस्लामी विजय के खिलाफ बहादुरी से लड़े थे। राम स्वरूप लिखते है:इस्लाम के आगमन के साथ हिन्दू समाज महान दबाव में आया; अस्तित्व की समस्या अान पड़ी थी। जब राजनीतिक शक्तियाँ विफल रही तो जातियों ने मोर्चा संभाला; जातियाँ रक्षाकवच बनीं, जातियों ने प्रतिरोध जारी रखा, निष्क्रिय और सक्रिय दोनों ही रूप में। लेकिन इस प्रक्रिया में, इस सामाजिच प्रणाली में अस्पृश्यता जैसे अवांछनीय लक्षण भी सन्निहित हो गये। अल बरूनी, जोमहमूद गजनवी के साथ अाये थे, उनने चार जातियों का विवरण दिया है, लेकिन अस्पृश्यता का कोई उल्लेख नहीं किया है। उनके अनुसार, "जितना भी, चाहे, यह जातियाँ भिन्न हों परस्पर, रहती साथ ही हैं उन्हीं गांवों अौर कस्बों में, मिलजुल, एक ही घरों अौर एक ही रिहाइशों में".....मुस्लिम अवधि के दौरान, कई राजपूतों का अवक्रमण हुअा तथा वे अनुसूचित जातियाँ और अनुसूचित जनजातियाँ बन गये। उनमें से अधिकांश अभी भी राजपूत गोत्र बरकरार रखे हुये हैं।
प्राचीन भारत में जातियाँ तो थीं, पर जातिवाद नहीं, जो कि जातियों का राजनीतिकरण मात्र है। जातिवाद भारत में आज बड़े पैमाने पर है। "अपने वर्तमान स्वरूप में, जातिवाद औपनिवेशिक काल की एक रचना है, जो कि साम्राज्यवादी नीतियों तथा अौपनिवेशिक बुद्धिजीवियों का एक उत्पाद है, जिसे मजबूती हमारे अपने "सुधारकों" के सीना ठोंकने से ही मिल पाई है। आज, यही जातिवाद अपनी गति पकड़ चुकी है, अपने निहित स्वार्थों को अपना चुकी है।" प्राचीन काल में जाति व्यवस्था स्थिर नहीं थी। जातियाँ अपने ही वर्ण के अंदर, ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय, वैश्य और शूद्र नामक चार वर्णों के अंदर, उभरती-गिरती रहती थीं। धार्मिक शिक्षक, विभिन्न जातियों के होते थे, निचली जातियों से भी। उदाहरण के लिए, संत रविदास एक अछूत "चमार" थे, चमड़े का काम करने वाले। संत कबीर एक जुलाहा या बुनकर थे।
वर्ण अौेर जाति:
ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय, वैश्य और शूद्र: चार वर्ण या जाति-समूह हैं। अछूतों से पांचवें समूह का गठन होता है। प्रत्येक वर्ण आगे कई जातियों में बांटा गया है। "जाति" का अनुवाद "caste" होगा, पर संभवत: इसे "sub-caste" कहना अधिक उपयुक्त होगा। भारत में जातियों की संख्या सैकड़ों रही हैं। कुछ जातियाँ गिनती में सूक्ष्म हैं, कुछेक हजार सदस्यों की, जबकि कई बड़ी हैं अाकार में, और कई लाख में संख्या हो सकती है सदस्यों की। जातियाँ क्षेत्र और राज्य के अनुसार भिन्न होती हैं। दक्षिणी राज्यों में चेटियार जबकि राजस्थान में मारवाड़ी पाए जाते हैं; दोनों विपणन समुदाय हैं।
जाति व्यवस्था के गुण: निम्नलिखित विशेषताएं सामान्यतः जाति व्यवस्था के साथ जुड़ी रही हैं।जन्म द्वारा सदस्यता:व्यक्ति एक जाति में पैदा होता है। स्वेच्छा से यह चयन नहीं करता है।
सगोत्र विवाह:विवाह एक ही जाति के भीतर होती है। आधुनिक भारत में यह पद्धति अभी अभी बोलबाले के साथ जारी है, हालांकि कमजोर हुई है कुछ हद तक।
व्यावसायिक विशेषज्ञता:विभिन्न जातियाँ विभिन्न व्यवसाय करती हैं। अामतौर पर, यह कहा जा सकता है: • ब्राह्मण = पुजारी, दार्शनिक और शिक्षक• क्षत्रियो = शासक, अनुशासक और योद्धा• वैश्य = व्यापार, सौदागर, व्यापार मालिक, और किसान• शूद्र = सेवा व्यवसाय, जैसे, बढ़ईगीरी, बुनाई, सिलाई, नाई• अछूत = अशुद्ध और दूषित समझे जाने वाले काम, जैसे खाल उतारना, चर्मशिल्प, जमादार, सफाई कार्य
जातिगत व्यवसाय प्राचीन काल तक में कठोरतापूर्वक पालन नहीं किये जाते थे। अनेक महाकाव्यों तथा कहानियों में उदाहरण हैं। ऋषि Vishvamitra एक क्षत्रिय पैदा हुए थे। द्रोणाचार्य, एक ब्राह्मण, महाभारत के युद्ध में लड़े थे तथा अपने पक्ष की सेना का संचालन किया था। 7 वीं शताब्दी के राजा हर्ष एक वैश्य, एक व्यापारी जाति थे। आधुनिकीकरण और शहरी जीवन ने जातिगत व्यवसाय की अवधारणा का गंभीर क्षरण कर दिया है। सभी जाति के सदस्य अब सरकारी सेवा, व्यापार, शिक्षण और व्यवसायों में प्रवेश करते हैं।
हुक्कापानी: जातिगत पहचान खानपान को अपने स्वयं के सदस्यों के बीच ही प्रतिबंधित करता है। यह ग्रामीण उत्तर भारतमें, जहाँ मैं बड़ा हुआ, सच नहीं था। विभिन्न जाति के सदस्य एक दूसरे की शादियों में भाग लेते थे, उनके साथ खाते-पीते थे। जहाँ कहीं यह प्रथा बची थी, आधुनिकता ने वहां इसे गंभीर क्षति पहुंचा दिया है।
पदानुक्रम:स्थिति और प्रतिष्ठा के मामले में जातियों के बीच कुछ क्रम है: ब्राह्मण शीर्ष पर और अछूत तल पर । यह क्रम हमेशा स्पष्ट नहीं है और न ही सर्वसम्मत हैं। यह क्षेत्र पर भी निर्भर हो सकता है। कुछ इलाकों में, ब्राह्मणों शीर्ष पर रखा जा सकता है; और किसी दूसरे इलाके में वैश्य या क्षत्रिय उस स्थिति पर हो सकते हैं। महत्वपूर्ण बिंदु: सामाजिक व अार्थिक प्रतिष्ठायें समानार्थी नहीं हैं। ब्राह्मण एक उच्च धार्मिक स्थिति पर अासीन हो सकते हैं, पर अधिकांश मुख्यतया गरीब हैं, विशेषकर उत्तर भारत में। नीचे विस्तार में देखें।
जाति की उत्पत्ति:
जाति व्यवस्था भारत में प्राचीन समय से अस्तित्व में है। इसके कई कारण हैं। मैं चार एेसे कारकों का विवरण दे रहा हूँ।
1. मूल रूप से संभवत: यह जन्मजात गुणों पर अाधारित था।। श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता में कृष्ण के शब्दों के अनुसार:गीता को उद्धृत किया जा सकता है: "चार वर्ण, मेरे द्वारा बनाये गये हैं, एक प्रभाजन के माध्यम सेजो कि गुण-कर्म पर अाधारित है, अर्थात् गुण और काम के हिसाब से। "(4.13) यद्यपि किसी समय जातिव्यवस्था गुण-कर्म पर अाधारित थी, व्यवस्था का पतन हुअा, अौर जातियाँ जन्मना होने लगीं, वंशानुसार। श्री अरविंद (1872-1950) लिखते हैं: "इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं हैकि जातिव्यवस्था बिगड़ गई है। यह अात्मिक गुणों पर निर्भर होने की जगह, जो कि एक समय अनिवार्य था पर अब अधीनस्थ या सारहीन है, अब तो पूर्णतया व्यवसाय तथा जन्म पर अाधारित है।"
2. अन्य पुरातन समाजों की तरह, भारत भी जनजातियों अंतर्विवाही जातीय समूहों में विभाजित था। यही समूह जातियाँ बनीं। डॉ बी आर अम्बेडकर (1891-1956) लिखते हैं: "यह सुविदित है कि भारत के लोग कभी जनजातियों में विभाजित थे, हालांकि वह जनजातियाँ अब जातियाँ बन गई हैं, आदिवासी संगठन अभी भी बरकरार है।" डॉ अंबेडकर जाति के नस्लीय आधार को स्वीकार नहीं करते थे, छुअाछूत के नस्लीय सिद्धांत न सिर्फ Anthropometry के परिणामों के प्रतिकूल हैं, इस सिद्धांत को मानवजातिविझान द्वारा समर्थन भी नहीं मिलता।
3. प्रवासन नई जातियाँ बनाता है। जो यहूदी और पारसी उत्पीड़ण से बचने के लिए भारत अाये,बहुजातीय भारतीय सामाजिक मोज़ेक के भीतर अलग समूहों के रूप में बच गए।यहूदी चीन में विलुप्त हो गये हैं उनके साथ विवाह संबंधों के कारण, लेकिन अलग जाति होने के कारण से भारत में बच गए। पश्चिमी भारत में कोंकण तट पर सारस्वत ब्राह्मण कश्मीर से पलायन कर के पहुंचे, मुस्लिम उत्पीड़न से बचने के लिए। 1959 में तिबती बौद़ध दलाई लामा के साथ भारत भाग गए, व नई जाति समूह बने।4. धर्मांतरण नई जातियों की ओर जाता है। 1800s में, जब पंजाब में बुनकरों को इस्लाम में परिवर्तित किया गया, नई जाति बनी।
CASTE WITHIN CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMSChristians and Muslims in India do not escape caste divisions. Bothcommunities are divided into a number of subgroups which function like caste groups. Christians include Syrian Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Goan Christians, Adivasi Christians and are also divided by state and region. A Tamil Christian may have little in common with his compatriot in neighboring Kannada, much less in far off Delhi or Calcutta.
Muslims are even more divided: Sunnis, Shias, Bohras, Khojas, Ismailies, Ahmediyas,Wahabis and so on. Muslim caste groups practice endogamy—Sunnis marry among Sunnis, and Bohra Muslims among Bohras. Admittedly, these practices are being eroded under urban and moderninfluences. Imtiaz Ahmed writes:While there can be little doubt that the Koran recommends the egalitarian principle,actual practice among Muslim communities in different parts of the world falls short of the Koranic ideal. Particularly in India and Pakistan the Muslim society is clearly stratified. First, there is a line which divides the Ashraf from the Ajlaf: the former are high and the latter low. The Ashraf are further divided into four ranked subgroups: Sayyad, Sheikh, Mughal and Pathan. Some would regard Muslim Rajputs as a fifth subgroup of the Ashraf. The Ajlaf are similarly sub-divided into a much larger number of groups. All these groups, the Ashraf and the Ajlaf, are endogamous. Furthermore, they are hierarchically arranged in relation to one another, the Sayyads occupying the highestand the Sweepers the lowest position. –See his Caste and Social Stratification among Muslims in India, South Asian Books, 1978, p. 142.The Ashraf-Ajlaf distinction is not limited to India or Pakistan. One of my Moroccan Muslim students proudly told me once that he was an Ashraf and that other Moroccan students at the campus were not. In Iran only Arab descent qualifies one to hold high Vilayat-e-Faqih religious office. Only Arab descent from the Prophet Muhammad’s Hashemite tribe qualifies one to wearthe black turban. Other Iranian clergy wear white. Ethnic or caste specialization is not unique to India. It is common around the world. The Lou tribesmen of Kenya, who live next to Lake Victoria, are fish merchants. Because of theirreputation and skills, the Lou control the fish trading business in countries of East Africa, as far away as Mombasa. Even in the global business center of New York City, there are ethnicconcentrations by occupation. Hasidic Jews control the diamond trade in Manhattan. TheVietnamese immigrants run most of the “nail salons,” and Koreans run the convenience stores.Because some occupations are more lucrative than others (diamond business for example),income inequality by ethnicity is inherent.Even untouchability is not peculiar to Hindu India. It has existed elsewhere. The Packchong inKorea, Eta or Buraku in Japan, and Ragyappa in Tibet all had in common the fact that thesegroups performed work that was considered polluting and impure. The work consisted usuallyof animal slaughter, tanning of animal hides and scavenging. The Eta in Japan lived separatelyfrom the rest of society. Their work was associated with “death, dirt and blood,” consideredimpure and unclean.vGypsies or the Roma people may be considered European untouchables.Just because untouchability has existed in several countries does not excuse the disabilityassociated with it. Untouchability, and the disability associated with it, must see its sunset.PERSONAL NARRATIVE: RURAL PUNJAB, NORTH INDIAI grew up in rural Punjab, Sangrur District, in 1950s. My village contained some one dozendifferent Hindu and Sikh jatis or caste groups. Population count was taken by the number offamily units, not individuals. Of the total 300 families in 1950, the approximate castebreakdown was as follows: Jat farmers 180, Baniya merchants 20, Brahmins 20, the servicecastes of blacksmith, barber, Carpenter, oil presser, weaver, etc 30, and two untouchablegroups of Chamars and Churahs (leather workers and sweepers) 25 each, for a total of 3005families. Some 20 Muslim families of potters and weavers left the village in 1947 to migrate toPakistan or to majority Muslim towns within India.Each caste was traditionally associated with a particular occupation. But all did not pursue it.None of the 20 Brahmin families for example pursued the traditional priest-craft; some didfarming, others did retailing or manual labor. Many of the untouchables did share cropping, inaddition to leather work. For each jati, the marriage circle consisted of some 40-50 villagesspread within a radius of about 50 miles. This was 60 years ago. With the availability of moderntransportation and communication, the marriage circle now encompasses a wider area.The village consisted of four contiguous sections or neighborhoods, called behras. Theuntouchables occupied one of the four neighborhoods. All other castes were mingled in theremaining three sections. Untouchable separateness was not strictly adhered to, though.Members of the higher castes bought properties adjoining the untouchable quarter. Theprimary school I attended was located in the untouchable section of the village and nobodythought much about it. With the exception of the untouchables, all other caste groups wereintermingled. They shared each other’s food and water. They attended each other’s weddingsand special ceremonies. Even though food and water was not shared with the untouchable,they were an integral part of the village social and economic fabric.My Vaishya family’s three immediate neighbors were a Brahmin, a Tailor and a Jat farmer. Notaboo about sharing food held sway. As a child I accepted water and food at the tailor’s homeand nobody in my family told me otherwise. Nobody in the village identified the tailor as ashudra. Only after reading books on caste did I know that the tailor belonged to the lowershudra caste. The barely literate Brahmin neighbor pursued subsistence farming rather thanthe traditional priest-craft.Many descriptions of caste system popular in the West are based on ancient law books. Forexample, the laws of Manu seriously limited the rights of the untouchable caste groups. Butthat is not the present-day ground reality. Even sixty years ago in 1950, hereditary occupationwas not much followed. The principle of pollution and purity did not strictly hold sway. Thestatus difference among different groups was minimal. Only the practice of endogamyremained. And, things have dramatically changed since my childhood.Village identification was more important than caste or religious identification. When I left Indiasome 50 years ago to travel to the United States for study, the entire village walked two milesto the railway station to send me off with their blessings. Many had teary eyes. When Ireturned three years later, a similar reception waited for me at the village gate. My emotionaltie to the village is stronger than to my caste or religion. Even though I left the village some 50years ago, I make periodic pilgrimages there.Mine was a peaceful village, like all other villages in the vicinity that I knew. Inter-castetensions were rare. Textbook accounts of inter-caste conflict are exaggerated or untrue. Therewas small scale thievery but little serious or violent crime. There were no accounts of girls6being raped in the remembered history of the village. All lived in similar housing, one or tworoom clay-brick houses with front courtyards where animals might be tethered and cooking andwashing were done. Their possessions were few in number. Milk and honey did not flow,contrary to idealized versions of Punjabi rural life. But all managed a healthful organic diet.There was the close-knit family and the larger village community that gave one the sense ofbelonging. This inculcated confidence and pride. Fairs, festivals and wedding feasts providedentertainment and gaiety. We lived reasonably contented lives.In post-Independence India, caste has been politicized and arenas of conflict have increased.Political parties now accentuate caste and religious divisions in order to garner votes.Economic Disparity: The Untouchables were somewhat poorer than the rest in the village, butnot by much. All were poor. There was no correlation between upper caste and economicstanding. Theoretically, Brahmins were supposed to occupy the top rank; in reality, theyreceived no elevated status economically or in prestige. Jat farmers and Baniya merchantsearned better than other caste groups including Brahmins, individual cases excepted. With landvalues skyrocketing in the recent decades, Jat farmers who own land have become affluent. As95 percent were illiterate, educational gaps were minimal. One of my fond memories as ayoung student was to read and compose letters for the villagers. Letters were exchanged onlyon special occasions--to announce births, deaths, and marriages. Even though most adultswere unlettered, they were not un-smart, unwise or ignorant. With all my education, I wouldnot want to match my wits with theirs.Although food and water were not shared with the untouchables, they were fully integratedinto the economic and social life of the village. All members of the village bought and sold fromone and another. The embroidered brocade shoes I wore at my wedding were made by thehighly respected village cobbler, an untouchable by caste and a friend of my father. I still ownthe flat-soled brocade pair. My village was typical of the ground reality in rural Punjab as I sawit. The village had not changed much in several centuries. Major social and economic changesoccurred in the subsequent decades. In a 2010 visit to my native village, I was informed that Jatfarmers and untouchables not only worked side by side on the farm but also now shared water,tea and food.Brahmin poverty runs across North India. Swami Vivekananda tells us that his masterRamakrishna Parmahansa was born into a very poor Brahmin family in Bengal. Writing aboutthe Brahmins, Vivekananda observes:You have heard of the Brahmins and their priest-craft many times. . . They are thepoorest of all the classes in the country, and the secret of their power lies in theirrenunciation. . . . Theirs is the poorest priesthood in the world.viPrakash Tandon gives a similar picture of Brahmin poverty in Punjab (Punjabi Century: 1857-1947, Chatto and Winds, 1961). I write about Brahmin poverty to counter the often madeclaims that Brahmins have exploited India. Note that Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation,7was not a Brahmin but a Modh Baniya, a member of the Vaishya group. PM Narendra Modiwho won elections in 2014 is a Modh Ghanchi, an oil-pressure and trading group, generallyconsidered to be either Vaishya or even a lower caste.Caste difference is not a national phenomenon; it is regional, even local. I have been told thatBrahmins do hold land and property in South India. Temple entry was denied to theuntouchables in the past. Mahatma Gandhi’s vigorous anti-discrimination campaigns put anend to these ignoble practices. Tables have turned against the Brahmins in several south Indianstates. Brahmins are systematically discriminated against, especially in the state of Tamil Nad.Furthermore, reservation quotas in government employment for the lower castes nowdiscriminate against the Brahmins and other upper castes.The temple exclusion for the untouchables and caste-based discrimination (whether pro oranti-Brahmin), where these exist, must end.POSITIVE ASPECTS OF CASTECaste has too long been the bane of Indian society. Negative aspects of the caste basedhierarchy in status and economic differences have received much scholarly attention. Wherethese exist, they must go. Caste based discrimination where it remains must end.But the positive aspects of the caste system need to be recognized. Caste based society is atolerant society. It celebrates our cultural differences. Different castes practice their owncustoms in marriage, worship, food and dress. Minorities, whether religious, racial, language orethnic, retain their cultural distinctiveness within the larger Hindu society.Caste system is a model of a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society that celebrates diversity. Incontrast, egalitarian societies that emphasize universalism (one set of laws and customs for all)often use force and coercion to achieve oneness. Note the following negative consequences ofuniversalism.• Stalin liquidated 30 to 40 million Russians in order to create a classless egalitariancommunist society in the Soviet Union. The same goes for Maoist China.• The Islamic conquest of the Middle East resulted in the exile and murder of hordes ofnon-Muslims, called Kafirs. Non-Muslims, when tolerated, were turned into Dhimmis,second-class citizens. Before the advent of Islam, the Middle Eastern countries werereligiously and ethnically diverse. Jews, Christians, and Pagans lived side by side in equalstatus.vii Under Islamic hegemony, religious minorities were turned into second-classcitizens or pushed out of the border.• During the Church sanctioned Inquisition that lasted several hundred years in Europe,especially in Spain and Portugal, many Jews were tortured, liquidated or exiled.Inquisition reached as far as Goa on the Indian coast.viii8With emphasis on pluralism and cultural diversity, the caste based society escapes such largescale onslaughts on people. Different caste, religious, ethnic and language groups follow theirparticular modes of living and religious belief.Hindu Pluralism in HistoryHindu India illustrates its commitment to pluralism in history. Christianity entered India withThomas of Syria in the 4th century A.D. (see the footnote).ix Judaism came to India after theJewish temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. and the Jews were expelled from theirhomeland. Both Christians and Jews have flourished in a predominant Hindu India for centurieswithout being persecuted. In a recent book titled Who Are the Jews of India? (University ofCalifornia Press, 2000), author Nathan Katz observes that India is the only country where theJews were not persecuted: “The Indian chapter is one of the happiest of the Jewish Diaspora.”p. 4. Also search for an article by Emily Wax of the Washington Post on Jews of India.Zoroastrians known as Parsees (or Parsis) entered India in the 7th and 8th centuries. They fled toescape Islamic conquest of Persia and the decimation of its ancient Zoroastrian religion. TheParsees are an affluent community in the city of Bombay without a sense of having beenpersecuted. Among the richest business families in India are the Parsees; for example, the Tatafamily controls a huge industrial empire. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the powerful Prime Minister ofIndia, was married to Feroze Gandhi, a Parsee (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi).Tibetan Buddhists and Bangladeshi refugees are new entrants into India. Like the Jews and theParsees, they add to the caste diversity in India.Here is a telling historical fact: Jews also reached China. As in India, Jews were not persecutedin China. But they disappeared in China through intermarriage and assimilation. But Jewssurvived in India because their distinctiveness received societal approval.xIndia not onlywelcomed the oppressed groups, it allowed them to maintain their distinct cultural identity.Koenraad Elst observes:It is one thing to say that Hindu society has received the persecuted Jewish, SyrianChristian and Parsi communities well, but another to devise a system that allowed themto retain their identity and yet integrate into Hindu society. xiAMERICAN ETHNIC PLURALISMWith the increase in immigration of new nationality groups, the United States is becomingethnically diverse and culturally and religiously pluralistic. It begins to resemble India.The American “melting-pot” is somewhat of a myth. The melting pot theory combines peopleof different cultures and religions to yield a final product of uniform consistency and flavor. Thenew mix is quite different from the original parts; hence the “Melting Pot". This idea differsfrom other analogies, particularly the salad bowl analogy. The ingredients retain their culturalidentities, thus retaining their integrity and flavor as in a salad bowl. The salad bowl analogy ismore widely accepted as a description of American ethnic landscape. A pecking order in social9status also existed historically: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant or the WASP at the top, thenCatholics (Irish, Italian, Polish, Spanish, etc.), then Jews and then Blacks at the bottom.President Kennedy broke the Catholic barrier in the election of 1960, as Obama broke the Blackbarrier in 2008.I spent six years as a graduate student in Buffalo, NY (1963-69). Buffalo was a multi-ethnic city,similar to other large industrial cities in the North. Different nationality groups concentrated indifferent parts of the city. Buffalo was first settled primarily by New Englanders, mostly English.Germans were the first wave of European immigrants. Then starting in the middle of 1800scame the Irish to escape famine, then the Italians, the Polish, the Greeks and a smaller numberof Russian and East European Jews.Polish Americans occupied the East Side, while Italian Americans concentrated in the West Side.The South Buffalo and the neighborhood called “the First Ward” were inhabited primarily bythe Irish, as the Kaisertown was by persons of German descent. The East Side is now apredominantly African American neighborhood. The West Side is now home to the city's newHispanic community, predominantly of Puerto Rican descent.The definition of who is “White” has changed over time in America. The book, How the Irishbecame White by Noel Ignatiev, 1995, describes the struggle the Irish had to mount to join“White” labor unions and clubs. It was only towards the end of the 19th century that the Irishbecame White. A similar struggle defined the experience of Italians, Greeks, Polish and theSlavic people. The Jews did not make into the White club till the middle of the 20th century. See“How Jews became White Folks and What that says about America” by Karen Bodkin, 1998. Seealso Rajiv Malhotra on “Whiteness Studies” at:
http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/…/whitenessstudies-and-imp…The recent American immigration is fueled by Asians and the Hispanics. The Asian communityincludes many distinct nationality groups: Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese andseveral others. The Hispanics are also culturally divided by the country of origin, although to alesser extent than the Asians. The new immigrant communities tend to keep their cultural andreligious identity for two to three generations. They overwhelmingly marry within their ownkind. It may be added that certain older minority groups such as the Mormons and the Amishare caste groups who also marry predominantly within their own community. All this adds tothe multi-cultural, diverse American landscape.Science and technology were supposed to eradicate primordial ties. This did not happen.Instead, finding your “roots” has become important. Walt Whitman described America as “anation of nations.” American nationalism is “civic, not ethnic or cultural.” Immigrants are notasked to give up their religion, language, customs, food or music. America now is a multiethnic,multi-religious and multi-racial society. More and more it resembles a caste-like society,not in the sense of hierarchy but in the sense that it values and preserves cultural diversity. Thisis a good thing.10America is a country that endlessly renews itself. This is also true of India in history: waves uponwaves entered into the country over the centuries. The secret to American genius is that it addsnew bloodlines every generation, thus adding to its cultural mix. The energy of newcombinations produces something different and better. The faces of immigrants are differentnow, mostly brown and yellow. They do not arrive at Ellis Island as previous generations did; theycome through the Kennedy Airport. The end result is the same – not only a more vigorous andvibrant America, but also more pluralistic and more tolerant America, much like the Indiathrough history. This again is a good thing.i Ram Swarup, “Logic behind perversion of caste,” The Indian Express, 13 September, 1996.See
http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/…/what-caste-actually-w…/. A must-read piece.iiRam Swarup, Ibid.iii Sri Aurobindo, India’s Rebirth, p 27iv Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, V 1, p 303.v Harold A. Gould, The Hindu Caste System, V. 1, Delhi: Chanakya Publishers, 1987, p 82-83.vi “My Master,” in Inspired Talks, Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, NY, 1987, p. 157.vii Bat Ye’or: Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, Fairleigh Dickinson University, 2001viii Richard Zimler reports in his book Guardian of the Dawn that the Portuguese Inquisition in Goa was“the most merciless and cruel ever developed. It was a machinery of death.” Over the 250 years (1560to about 1812), any man, woman or child could be arrested and tortured for simply saying a prayer,wearing a religious symbol or keeping an idol at home. The Portuguese are nostalgic about Goa andthink of it as a glorious island, peaceful, multicultural and prosperous. Indians also are not aware of thehorrors of the Inquisition in Goa. Visit:
http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php… .ix There are different accounts as to when Christianity came to Kerala in South India. It is now generallyagreed that Christianity was not introduced by St Thomas in the first century but by Syrian merchantThomas Cananeus in the 4th century. See
http://folks.co.in/2009/11/st-thomas-in-india-myth-or-truth/xMost Indian Jews have migrated to Israel in the recent decades for economic reasons, not for anyreason of persecution or discrimination. The Indian Jews have publically stated so.xi Koenraad Elst, Who is a Hindu?, Voice of India, 2001; Ch 1, at:
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/ch1.htm .11
Dr. M. Lal Goel
Dr. M. Lal Goel, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Department of Government The University of Florida
UWF.EDU
